Not that I'm skeptical or anything... but I would expect this to end up being just like the "Privacy Policy" notices we all get from banks and other places, or HIPPA - a nice sounding bit of legislation with so many holes in it, the 100-200 page bill will end up doing nothing but giving jobs to "compliance officers" while actually resulting in less opportunity for the "consumer" to sue or block the data access. Think about how HIPPA actually works, since the insurance company needs to know what the doctor treated you for, your "data" gets sent to them (if not the actual paper chart, a summary of what boil on what limb, or what infectious disease test was used). Expect that car companies will hammer this hard in lobbying...

Not that I'm skeptical or anything... but I would expect this to end up being just like the "Privacy Policy" notices we all get from banks and other places, or HIPPA - a nice sounding bit of legislation with so many holes in it, the 100-200 page bill will end up doing nothing but giving jobs to "compliance officers" while actually resulting in less opportunity for the "consumer" to sue or block the data access. Think about how HIPPA actually works, since the insurance company needs to know what the doctor treated you for, your "data" gets sent to them (if not the actual paper chart, a summary of what boil on what limb, or what infectious disease test was used). Expect that car companies will hammer this hard in lobbying...

You think it means something...

... until you see some guy named Sarek Vulcansden scampering off to the embassy of a South American nation with a Thumbdrive full of evidence the NSA has been tracking your every move and the President denies such claims until they trickle out in the media, including Angela Merkel's predilection for Krispy Kreme whenever she's in the US. About that time you realize laws don't mean much if there be people who think they only apply to other agencies.

You could start with a system that values liberties and rights over twisted reinterpretations, fallacies like 'precedent', and passive aggressive political correctness. Then you could replace those currently in office with those who consider their roles to uphold the constitution as duties rather than careers, ie not people from the ivy league law school track. If the laws are made so complex that they require a law degree to 'interpret,' how can we expect the common man to do so in order to obey? It's a

A fallacy is another name for a heuristic. For example, one of Wikipedia's core principles is verifiability of claims [wikipedia.org] to reliable sources, which any logician would identify as the appeal to authority [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]. Likewise, the use of precedent in common law [wikipedia.org] is an appeal to tradition [wikipedia.org]. Fallacies are wrong when all premises are known true or false, but this is rarely the case in the real world. Applying strict logical reasoning to the incomplete information that fallible humans have everywhere but in the artificial world [xkcd.com]

Note that the law says that your data is your property.Car rental companies will fight this, as will hospitals, advertisers and everyone who wants to own someone else's data, but over time they'll get the same kind of respect we now show towards people who believe they can own human beings.

Not the manufacturers per se, but expect fleet operators and car-rental companies to fight this tooth and nail. Meanwhile, the insurance companies will offer cheaper policies if you waive your rights on this, and, of course, opposing lawyers will subpena your black box records in every little accident.

Insurance companies already are working on getting people to have black boxes. These are not for your benefit. They will not make your insurance cheaper. They are there to raise the average insurance revenue.

You can expect data to mysteriously disappear during or shortly after wrecks, if it was ever collected at all.

"This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their permitted successors and assigns."

"Any assignment or transfer of an asset covered by this agreement, may only be performed, if there is also a binding assumption section of responsibility for performance under this agreement, by the assignee."

You should study contract law a little if you think it works that way. It does not.

At best it might allow you to sue the first owner for selling in violation of your contract, if you find out about it, but good luck covering the lawyers fees in the process. It still gives you no rights whatsoever against the second owner, who is not a party to the contract.

It still gives you no rights whatsoever against the second owner, who is not a party to the contract.

The rights are encumbered ownership to the property, and to the monitoring, recording data about its use --- the next owner doesn't obtain the right to the property, free and clear of the encumbrances.
You don't need to obtain rights "against the second owner"; as the first owner gave you rights against the property, that the first owner is incapable of taking back without your consent ----- even if th

Only the user has the right to there data. Be it the cars back box or there cell phone or whatever else somebody cooks up. In no case my a company use that data or share with others. Is it that hard? Hell force them to serve any warrants to the owners of the data aka the person the data is about.

Nothing free about the heavily regulated insurance industry. In many cases (auto insurance being one) they implement political agendas that would otherwise get slapped down were they to be exposed to public review. There be dragons and major social engineering going on here.

You want to sell insurance in our state? You kiss the ass of the insurance commission. Or forget about it. You'll assess 'points' for drivers under a state formula, not one based on risk and cost. So grandpa doesn't get dinged for drivi

"EDR data shall only be used for the purpose of enhancing the safety of the vehicle or to determine the facts after a failure of said vehicle, any marketing use shall be only on the condition of a detailed written (and physically signed by the registered owner) document. This document shall render null and void any clauses written elsewhere and shall not be tied to any maintenance agreement or otherwise cause the registered owner to be forced to sign."

If your car was 100% stripped of computers/etc, you'd still be tracked by cellular, CCTV, plates/tags, dashboard cameras, eye witnesses, etc. Let's tone down the EDR, crank up external mechanisms and look good at the same time!!

WASHINGTON â" Senators John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) today introduced their Driver Privacy Act, legislation that protects a driverâ(TM)s personal privacy by making it clear that the owner of a vehicle is also the owner of any information collected by an Event Data Recorder (EDR).

I said this last time... Consent doesn't mean the same thing for legislators and corporations as it does for you peons. Consent is, you used it, thought about it, looked at it... thanks to intellectual property, it's not dissimilar to rape. And I believe it was a Congressman who said... hey, if it's gonna happen, you might as well enjoy it. But you know, if the intellectual property is illegitimate, then the consumer has ways of shutting that whole thing down, right?

Consent is, you used it, thought about it, looked at it... thanks to intellectual property, it's not dissimilar to rape. And I believe it was a Congressman who said... hey, if it's gonna happen, you might as well enjoy it.

Almost.

It was Clayton Williams of Midland during his failed run for Governor of Texas against Anne Richards in the '90 gubernatorial campaign.

Likening eminent rape to the weather, he quipped, If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.

You can't drive drunk, high, stupid, menacing, without a seat belt, over the speed limit or run over pedestrians. And you must have insurance.

If someone wants driving privacy, go to a private track.

There are places to worried about government intrusion, but this isn't one of them. About 80% of my driving is either to work or to a store for groceries or what not. I just want it to be safe and efficient.

You say that now while self-driving cars are in their infancy. Where will your rights be when they use them to take everyone past the age of 65 off the roads because being "old" gets added to the list of things that are prohibited while operating a vehicle....hmm?

I know a few 65+ year olds that are scared to death of driving. Plus a few too stubborn to stop when they get dangerous, and a few who simply don't have driver's permits in the first place.

A safe and efficient way for all of them to get to the store or doctor's office would be a godsend to most of them.

Sure, a few stubborn old men have substituted their driving and car for their non-functional penis, but that's not a valid reason to do anything.

Actually, use of the public road is a right. Driving a 2-ton clumsy-box at high speed is the thing that's a privilege. Asmittedly, horses and bicycles are annoyingly slow, but no-one can make riding them a privilege (;-))

Rights that are apparently so important, they used to be the main criteria in deciding whether or not you were allowed to vote.

Most driver's that want "rights" have very dirty laundry.

What a cute way to re-word "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." Aside from the fact that, thanks to a little phenomena known as overcriminalization [nacdl.org] pretty much every single American over the age of 6 is technically guilty of committing some sort of infraction, the point of it all is that the gove

Most people that get injured or die outside the home under 50 involves an automobile.

And automobile accidents only take a little bit of inattentiveness.

Funny enough, I used to be against states continually lowering the BAC numbers but seeing the death/injury stats a few years ago made me realize automobile realities should yield to the statistics of how and who are causing these accidents and when.

Hint: Friday and Saturday nights after 10 PM, unsurprisingly, are very dangerous. So are summer afternoons

Walking is also a privilege, not a right. You will comply when gov't requires you to wear a GPS device around your neck at all times to track your location. It is for a safe and efficient society.

You mean a cellphone?;)Pardon my 2 year old stats...http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/06/prepaid-mobile-phone-users-in-america-hit-record-high/ [arstechnica.com] says most US phones are run by contract (75% users as of that article posting)IIRC, contracts normally come with carrot-stick: you actually want those hmmm-tasty subsidies to knock half off that phone's MSRP, so you must pass a credit check. But that credit check is tied to your social security number, which gives the government your identity. And my retort isn'

There is a whole lot of fail there. Driving is a privilege, so if we want to ban drunk driving, we can [did]. And if we want to regulate privacy of Event Data Recorders installed in vehicles, we can [will].

And a private track is exactly where many regulations don't apply, not a place people go for regulated driving.

Oh hell, and here I came in becase I thought they were somehow talking about privacy issues within OS drivers.

You might recover my "black box" after an accident -- just like in an airplane crash -- but otherwise my on-board GPS is going to have "an unfortunate accident" the first day I have it. (I, of course, will NOT be buying the enhanced navigation console.)

If you want to know where I am, you can call me and ask, or wiretap my phone like they did it back in grandpa's day -- with a physical wire.

What about all the )(*@)#!# cameras, RFID scanners, license plate scanners and such? This is like a tiny part of the Iceberg here and this legislation needs to cover those aspects as well. I'm less worried about Ford having this than I am some Barney Fife police agency who has no data retention policies and just collects it just for the hell of it. Ford at least can be handled by the courts and brought to account in a class action lawsuit. If you have systems like OnStar, rip them out all they have beco

It should be abundantly clear by now that if you don't want data misused, the absolute best way to do is to not collect it in the first place, with a poor second being to reliably destroy it some short period after the collection. Certainly once you've transmitted it beyond the collection point to a third party, it can be assumed to be available forever.

If you want useful legislation, require that the data not be recorded or transmitted. But of course we already have legislation and regulation (OBD-III) r

The only way to truly show why we need privacy is to openly display its power. If I knew about your every eye movement, facial gestures, your online activity and profiles, your health record, your breathing rate, your heart rate, and be able to influence your responses, I could very much effect your mood. I'm thinking about writing a game to relax and/or scare people, and put warning labels such as, "Don't play for more than X hours, this game might drive you to insanity etc." It would get people thinkin